Partly allowed

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Osmanabad Thr Mohan B Kade and Anr. v. Hariba Devrao Mane and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2019CA/1859/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application seeks condonation of a 4+ year delay in filing an appeal against a land acquisition award due to arbitrary compensation enhancement by the Reference Court. The Single Judge condoned the delay citing negligence and significant enhancement over the offered rate, registering the appeal and partially staying the award pending registration.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; appeal registered; interim stay made absolute as compensation was deposited; notice to respondents issued.

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Osmanabad Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

943 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10367 OF 2018

¶4

IN FAST/41237/2017

¶5

WITH

¶6

CA/1859/2018 IN FAST/41237/2017

¶7

WITH

¶8

CA/1860/2018 IN FAST/41237/2017

¶9

THE EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION
OSMANABADTHR MOHAN B KADE AND ANR

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

HARIBA DEVRAO MANE (DIED) THR LRS NARAYAN AND ORS

¶12

...

¶13

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Arora Shyam C.;
Mr. HP Bondar, Adv. For Resp.Nos. 2 & 3.

¶14

---

¶15

CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATED : 7th February, 2019.

¶16

PER COURT:-

¶17

1.For the reasons stated in the

¶18

application, CA No.10367/2018 moved for bringing
the legal heirs of deceased Respondent Nos. 1 & 4
is allowed. The legal heirs of the concerned
respondents as are mentioned in the application be
taken on record. Necessary amendment be carried

¶19

out within two weeks. Delay caused in filing the
application is condoned. Abatement, if any, stands
set aside.

¶20

2.Heard CA for delay. Shri Bondar, learned
counsel, submits that he has instructions to appear
on behalf of legal heirs of Respondent Nos. 1 and

¶21

4. Service complete.

¶22

(2)

¶23

3.Delay of 1673 days has occurred in filing

¶24

the appeal by the acquiring body. It is the
contention in the application that in making
procedural compliances, the delay has occasioned
and that is the main reason that the appeal could
not be filed within stipulated period of
limitation. The learned counsel submitted that
when the SLAO had offered the compensation @
Rs.205/- per Are, the Reference Court has enhanced
it to Rs. 1843/- per Are. The learned counsel
submitted that the Reference Court has arbitrarily
enhanced the amount of compensation. The learned
counsel further submitted that substantial grounds
are raised in exception to the impugned Judgment
and Award and as such, an opportunity needs to be
given to the acquiring body to prosecute its appeal

¶25

on merits.

¶26

4.Shri Bondar, learned counsel appearing

¶27

for the respondents-claimants has strongly opposed
for condoning the delay, stating that huge delay of
more than four years, has not been properly
explained by the acquiring body. The learned
counsel further submitted that in absence of any
cogent reason put forth by the acquiring body, the

¶28

(3)

¶29

delay cannot be condoned. He, therefore, prayed
for rejecting the application.

¶30

5.I have considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties. It is true that the delay caused is of
huge period, however, it appears that the delay has
been caused because of negligence on part of the
officers concerned dealing with the matter.
However, it cannot be ignored that ultimately
public money is involved. Prima facie case appears
to have been made out by the appellants since the
amount of compensation has been enhanced by many
times than the amount offered by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. In the circumstances and more
particularly having regard to the fact that public
money is involved, I am inclined to allow the
present application. Hence, the following order, -

¶31

ORDER
i. The delay caused in filing the appeal
is condoned. The CA for condonation of delay is

¶32

disposed of. The appeal be registered in

¶33

accordance with law

¶34

ii.On registration of the appeal, issue
notice to the respondents. Learned counsel Shri
Bondar waives notice for the respondents. Service
complete

¶35

(4)

¶36

6.In view of the fact that the acquiring body

¶37

has deposited the entire amount of compensation, as was
directed by this Court, the interim stay granted
earlier on 16th March, 2018 is made absolute. CA for
stay disposed of.

¶38

7.Call R and P.

¶39

8. List the matter for further consideration

¶40

after six weeks.

¶41

bdv

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Osmanabad Thr Mohan B Kade and Anr. v. Hariba Devrao Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Osmanabad Thr Mohan B Kade and Anr. v. Hariba Devrao Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dagdubai Vaijinath Kore Vs the Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Irrigation Division, Omerga and Ors.

Manmath Bhimrao Kapse Vs the Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Irrigation Division, Omerga and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal Div. Vaijapur Vs Rangnath Jaiwanta Khoje Deceased Lrs Dhondabai and Others

M.S.E.B.Thru Ex.Engr.(Civil)Osmanabad. Vs Gundappa Mallikarjun Swami and Anr.

M.S.E.B.Thru Ex.Engr.(Civil)Osmanabad. Vs Vasantrao Digambarrao Shashtri and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Thro.Collector. Vs Mohammad Abdul Salim Abdul Raheman.